‘Innocence Of Muslims’ Was A Deliberate Attempt To Incite Violence
on September 15, 2012 at 4:38 pmThis is not a matter of free speech. This is a criminal matter. The producer, director and anyone involved with making sure it “got out” should be charged with the deaths of every American and person in the Middle East resulting from the riots. Think I’m over-reacting? Watch this clip from the Young Turks:
It’s one thing to criticize Islam. Hell, I’ve done it. It’s OK to exercise your right to free speech by depicting Mohammed. I’ve done that, too (poorly). You can even make a virulently anti-Islamic film and lie to the cast about what it is they’re filming by dubbing over their voices (I’ve never done that). It’s quite another thing to make such a film and then market it specifically to Muslims under false pretenses. If the object was to open an honest dialogue, why resort to duplicity?
You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater and you shouldn’t be able to deliberately incite Muslims to violence for political purposes. These people belong in jail.
Couldn’t have said it better myself…..
Part of me agrees that we shouldn’t allow people to deliberately provoke others to violence. But then the part of me that embraces Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” thinks, “Those people are pathetic. So easily provoked to anger, it makes them easy to defeat in battle.” Most of the people killed in these riots are fellow Muslims. Also, there are those who would see inciting them to kill one another as a good thing; this might actually lead to copycat productions, which likely will be even more vile.
The standard enunciated by the US Supreme Court for speech that loses First Amendment protection was set forth in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZO.html.
In Brandenburg, SCOTUS stated:
“These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
I think this conduct could well meet the Brandenburg standard for unprotected speech.
You’re all supposed to be working yourselves into blood lust. Let’s get with the program, guys. Someone spent big money to get you all enraged. Rent a riots don’t come cheap, you know.
The GOP told us they would stop at nothing to remove the President from office. For once, they were honest.
With Al Qaeda taking credit and Fox promoting this film and law enforcement supposedly taking one of the makers into custody, this is starting to smell like a pre-election psyop.
There is the societal aspect, where by in these communities you have large groups of young men roaming the streets without anything to do, why? No women to chase, they are all locked up. Take any college town USA, and remove the women….. then parade the mascot for the ‘other team’ down main street, after you deliberately craft a film that insults the home team, make it appear as though it came from said team. Then watch what happens.
My analogy doesn’t even fit because, somone (not american) made this film, while hiding behind the US. That person needs to fry, let’s make sure the true identity of this guy is plastered all over the world, then drop his ass off in the middle of town one night.
It was the jews. They made this film. They disgrace the one true prophet and all should kneel down unto the beheaders plate.
You’re an imbecile.
Beautifully made point. And likewise, the rapists defence ‘well her skirt was very short…’ is a brilliant one, the victims of the rapists should be jailed for provoking rape!
Brilliant analogy! Except in this case, the producers of the film that deliberately misled Muslims with the intent of provoking them would be the drunken rapist’s friend telling them that the girl with the short skirt said she wants somebody to have rough sex with her because it’s a fantasy of hers.
and we all know rough sex = rape and insulting muslims = asking for pointless murder. Even protests demanding censorship alone are a display of utter self-righteous arrogance and lack of respect for the human right of freedom of expression. This is the kind of behaviour and attitude that caused the Dark Ages in England.
Fox and other right wing leaning news outlets are just waiting, hoping, for the president to come down on this movie then they can do they church lady routine, “But I thought only MUSLIMS were angered by this movie, why is the president so mad now hmmmmmmm?”
No, if we begin censoring things that could be offensive or incite violence, then where does it end? Will we be happy when the morons at westboro baptist turn violent when someone posts a pro-gay video? What about when circumcision becomes illegal, will it be ok when jewish people riot? If they are moved to violence at this, then the blame lies solely with them, and we have the responsibility and the right to defend ourselves, and our criticism, which by extension is also our freedom of speech.